AA 2.X was an adult game

I love all the work put into the PG version and I do understand that the DEV team has nothing to do with the original team and as such they want to be as original as they can.

But I'm very sad to see that this game is no more an adult game. It's full of kids yelling and harassing people.

I believe these 4 mins games in tiny maps just attract impatient yelling and griefing kids.

I miss those long 15 mins games in Mountain Pass where patience, strategy and teamwork were key to winning. People respected each and other and you could see chats filled at the end of the round with GJ and NT. Even if they guy was horribly skilled. You could watch for a whole 10 minute match a clueless guy doing what he could/knew and congratulate him with a Nice Try at the end.

This version has so many great things, but I can't see any US Army value anywhere. And it's not because the people that play it, but because the people that are attracted by this version of the game.

Exactly. AA 2.X was a success and had a huge player base due to the type of gameplay. PG gameplay attracts instant gratification kids and that type of player is not a loyal fan base. It is just a shiny object jumping crowd.

Keebz I dont think I have seen a post from you in a while without sarcasm attached to it. To insinuate that all comp players are kids, and impatient, would be like saying all beta testers are old and slow, and want to slow the game down more to allow them more time to react to everything.
How is what you are saying postive or constructive; which is what you tend to complain about in alot of peoples posts.

Exactly. AA 2.X was a success and had a huge player base due to the type of gameplay. PG gameplay attracts instant gratification kids and that type of player is not a loyal fan base. It is just a shiny object jumping crowd.

What do you consider a loyal fan base? How long does someone need to play this game to be loyal. I played consistently from closed beta until this past Thanksgiving. This was the only game I played. I wanted even lower round times than what we have now, but I aint young and I dont need instant gratification. I dont feel the direction of long times will do anything good for gameplay.

AA2 had success becuase of its timing.

AAPG is plagued with issues. Lag compensation is one of the worst I've seen. Player movement is sluggish. There is no comp support whatsoever. The performance of the game is mediocre at best. Map design for official maps are lacking ingenuity.

You mention the people that are attracted to this game is the younger crowd but there are hardly young people that play this game. I'd be willing to bet more than half the people that play are over 30. There were far more younger players that played AA2 than AAPG. Id be willing to be that 75% of the people that play AAPG are the same people that played AA2, which makes everyone around 15 years older.

One of the best things about this game is options. You want longer round times there are servers out there that fit your needs. But to be honest most maps dont warrant longer round times. The players that want longer round times are typically the players that sit back until there is no time left and let time run out. So why should everyone need to wait an extra 5 more minutes for the inevitable. If a player cant learn and adapt to gameplay and challenge themselves, what is the point? Doing things out of the ordinary and being aggressive at times will only improve ones gameplay.

I joined in July 2002 while already in my mid-30s. And....I would say I spent a long time not having a clue.

As to my quote, Hyperlite, I expect you to at least read what I said and not attach your own meaning to my words. I was responding to the OP:

I believe these 4 mins games in tiny maps just attract impatient yelling and griefing kids.

Who was it here in the forums demanding shorter round times? Not me. Who was it thought huge maps with too much detail was a bad idea?

The Comp cohort here in the forums wanted small, fast, tight 3v3 and 5v5 maps with muted lighter colours and less distracting detail, plus some weapon and player mechanics changes AWAY FROM THE OLD AA2 STYLE, criticizing 'old men proning around the maps.'

Am I wrong on this?

To the OP, the game is what it is. The Army doesn't recruit 50 and 60 year olds.

______

This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.

AAO/2 was truly one of a kind. I, personally, would love to try to recapture AA2 in a modern engine. As I've said before though, it isn't always that simple. The Army comes to us with what they want and we make it. The next AA could be an RTS, a VR experience, a vehicle simulator, who knows. The needs of The Army are always evolving and STEM is more in demand day after day. Fewer boots-on-ground shooters, more engineers, programmers, doctors, scientists, etc. The AA game is going to reflect those needs, naturally.

If I look at what's popular in FPS these days and for quite some time, there really isn't much out there that involves players being dead for long periods of time. People don't want to wait. As much as I hated revive in AAPG, it was partially intended to alleviate this issue (although IMO poorly since it's completely chance based, especially in public servers).

Look at what's popular:
PUBG - Player is always alive, when you die you join another game. People even complain about the one minute wait to get into game.
CS - Extremely short rounds (like 2 minutes). I believe back in the beta days (early 1999-2000) round times used to be like 5 or so minutes. Now they're extremely short
R6: Siege - 4 minute rounds with a pre-planning stage.

Unless you want to get into games like Arma & Squad that have ultra long rounds. I don't play these types so I'm not sure how the death mechanics work, but I'd imagine if there's no respawn then you'd just leave the game and join another, thus reducing your amount of dead/not playing time.

I believe that a round based game with 7 minute rounds just will not work these days. The main thing that needs to be accomplished with any FPS today is keeping the player in the game as much as possible. You can say this from a comp perspective, but I'll even say this from a streamer perspective. No one is going to watch a stream of someone who dies a minute into the round and then is doing nothing for 6 minutes. You either have short rounds, do respawn, or try something completely different. 5+ minute round games are a thing of the past.

You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!

Ok, someone could explain me the PUBG phenomen, in which you don't shoot to anyone in almost the entire round, and the round is quite always longer than the AAPG round? Who said that young people want to play fast and fast and fast?? The problem is the speed or the idea behind a game? After PUBG and Fortnite i'm not sure that the idea of 'fast'/'comp' must be mandatory for a succesful game. I know that AAPG and PUBG are not both FPS but i think that this shouldn't explain that abnormal difference in number of players.

Ok, someone could explain me the PUBG phenomen, in which you don't shoot to anyone in almost the entire round, and the round is quite always longer than the AAPG round? Who said that young people want to play fast and fast and fast?? The problem is the speed or the idea behind a game? After PUBG and Fortnite i'm not sure that the idea of 'fast'/'comp' must be mandatory for a succesful game. I know that AAPG and PUBG are not both FPS but i think that this shouldn't explain that abnormal difference in number of players.

PUBG has a fully FPS mode now (and has for quite some time). Also, it really depends on your play style. You can just as easily jump into a high traffic area and get into tons of firefights (I pretty much only play this way when I play solo - and so do many others judging by how many people drop into the hot spots), you're just at a higher risk of dying quickly. Again, there's a huge difference in that battle royale games are all about staying alive. The excitement of PUBG is staying alive, rather than racking up kills (although that's fun too). So people are content to play a round where they can get one kill for the entire game if that one kill wins them the match.

In PUBG you're never just sitting around being dead unless you're playing a squad match and you die before the rest of your team (which you have the option to leave and start another game if you want). Sure, you may find a cozy spot in the middle of the circle to hide out until the circle moves on you, but that's really the extent of it. Otherwise, you're always looting, running, driving, fighting, being on the lookout for enemies, etc.

When people are talking about speed, it has nothing to do with how many fire fights you get into or how fast you move. At least not to me. It's about getting back into the action faster once you die. In classic AA, you can die in the first minute of the round and then if a few guys are stuck being alive for the entire duration of the round, you may be stuck there doing nothing for another 6 or even 9 minutes. That's boring. Classic AA really wasn't that slow of a game. Most rounds would be over within 3 - 4 minutes at least in the more CQB style maps. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The difference was that AA would also have rounds that sometimes lasted all 7 minutes (or 10 depending on the version). Usually those rounds consisted of one or two guys from each team sitting around waiting for the other guy to make a move until time got too low and they were forced into doing something. That doesn't work in today's gaming environment.

You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!

you may be stuck there doing nothing for another 6 or even 9 minutes. That's boring.

When that happened you could reflect on what got you killed.

I also remember those 203 spawn shots that got you out of the game 10 seconds into the game. It was part of the game and you learnt the lesson. It wasn't going to happen again.

If you were playing with your squad/clan dying soon wasnt that awful. You could watch your friends play. If solo I would just alt+tab and multitask. It wasn't that awful and the fact.that people didn't DC was proof.

I also know that the game is what it is and that it's aimed at impatient 16yo kids.

I'm just saying it's sad. AAO really did a great job at teaching that patience is a virtue. I'm pretty sure it's a virtue in the real battlefield.

That being said I was guilty af to rush every kind of map to gain tactical advantage. Sometimes I would succeed and others I had time to reflect on how stupid I had been.

But again...toxicity is unbearable. I have to mute every single PG game because kids are yelling and insulting the other team. In AA:O there was honour in the chat 90% of time. For the other 10% we had a kick voting option.

I've checked some Squad videos and I will try it out for sure. Thanks for the tip. It seems to me it has an AAO vibe in it. It's seems to be aiming for a more mature audience.

It seems that PG and Squad are two different children of AA:O where PG is basically MOUT Mckenna on steroids and Squad is Radio Tower with more detail.

It's a shame that we can't get both under the same roof. That's probably what I miss from AA:O.

What exactly is the purpose of this game to the "army"? After all this years what have they accomplished? What are the plans for the future for this game? Why would anyone play this game for more than a week now? Not even competition is alive now, its just inner army left.

What exactly is the purpose of this game to the "army"? After all this years what have they accomplished? What are the plans for the future for this game? Why would anyone play this game for more than a week now? Not even competition is alive now, its just inner army left.

14 years in the game, and I'm still here. That said, not a fan of the AA3 version. but I returned to find AAPG interesting again, both the gameplay and to be social with the players I knew from before.

On PC there is always loads of new blockbusters that are great. the competitions are gone "mostly". but then again many went to play CS GO. and if you start comparing AA PG or any version of AA with CS GO or the other blockbusters, then id say AA as a free game has done better than anyone should hope to expect

Also I believe when AA gets all the new stuff out of the production players will come back, especially if there is any plan to advertise just that somewhere other than in the backyard Forums. And I'm sure they already tought of that or they already did